Humanistic care is one of the basic dimensions of Marx’s philosophy. Humanistic care is the concern for people's living conditions, the affirmation of human dignity and living conditions consistent with human nature, and the pursuit of human liberation and freedom, etc. However, we found that in the process of dissemination of Marx's philosophy, the dimension of humanistic care was obscured to a certain extent, resulting in Marx's theoretical image being misunderstood.
(1) In the process of dissemination of Marx’s philosophy, how is the dimension of its humanistic care obscured? Mainly through the following three different interpretation models of Marx's philosophy: The first interpretation model is: Marx's philosophy is a tool for class struggle. We might as well call this explanation model "instrumentalism". Although this theory acknowledges that the fundamental goal pursued by Marx's philosophy is to liberate all mankind, it also insists that, first, this goal is long-term; second, this goal is achieved through long-term class struggle. Therefore, when people explain his doctrine, they usually consciously or unconsciously forget or even suppress the dimension of humanistic care in Marx's philosophy, while intensifying and exaggerating its attributes of class struggle, or even simply understanding it as a tool for class struggle. or means. What's more, people simply understand Marx's philosophy as a pure theory of class struggle, and sharply oppose it to humanistic concerns, so that anyone who wants to talk about humanistic concerns is misinterpreting or criticizing Marx's philosophy.
The second understanding model is: Marx’s philosophy is a scientific theory that reveals the laws of development of human society. We might as well call this mode of understanding “scientific theory”. It is true that Marx's philosophy correctly reveals the objective laws of the development of human society, especially capitalist society. However, when people only focus on understanding Marx's philosophy from the perspective of "scientific theory", the humanistic dimension of Marx's philosophy will also be ignored. Cover it up. Because "scientific theory" only focuses on the accuracy of the laws of social development revealed by Marx's philosophy, it often ignores other important issues, especially the characteristics of humanistic care. In addition, "Scientific Theory" also emphasizes that the only force that plays a role in human society is "law" or "inevitability", which fundamentally denies human activities and excludes human beings from striving for freedom and liberation, exploring and pursuing humanities. The need to care. In short, opposing the scientific nature and humanistic nature of Marx's philosophy and using the former to deny the latter will inevitably lead to a distortion of the image of Marx's theory.
The three modes of understanding are: Marx’s philosophy is a practical philosophy. We might as well call this understanding model "practical theory". "Practice theory" has been the most popular understanding model in recent years. Compared with the above two modes of understanding, at first glance, the "theory of practice" is closest to the dimension of humanistic concern for Marx's philosophy, but it is not. The key here lies in how to understand the meaning of Marx’s concept of “practice”. People usually understand productive labor as the most basic form of practice. Of course, on the basis of productive labor, people have also explored other forms of practice, such as scientific experiments, class struggle, etc. But people’s basic understanding is that in Marx, other forms of practice are derived from the basic form of productive labor. In fact, the problem lies in this consciousness. People usually understand Marx in the following way, that is, freedom is the understanding of necessity. As long as workers understand the causal law of the external world, they will achieve freedom in labor; and this kind of freedom can be extended to other practices. In forms such as scientific experiments and class struggle, people also gain freedom in the corresponding practical fields. Here, there is a shocking misunderstanding of Marx's thought, and this misunderstanding is connected with people's lack of understanding of Kant's philosophy. According to Kant, pure reason and epistemology are related to nature, while practical reason and ontology are related to freedom. In this sense, productive labor is only a form of practice in the epistemological and scientific and technical sense, not in the ontological sense, so it is not really related to the human freedom emphasized by Kant and Marx. Directly linked to human freedom and humanistic care is the form of practice in the ontological sense, that is, human practical activities in politics, law, morality, and religion. Only in these practical fields can the dimension of humanistic care of Marx's philosophy will be clearly presented. It is precisely because of this that the German philosopher Habermas distinguished "communicative action" (as a practical activity that reflects humanistic care) from "instrumental purposive action" (as productive labor).
Premier Wen visited the people in the disaster area
(2) In the process of spreading Marxist philosophy, why did the above three theories become popular? This is no accident.
First of all, when people understand the relationship between Marx’s philosophy and the Western humanist tradition it inherits, they often separate it from the Western humanist tradition and set it in opposition to this tradition. It is true that Marx made profound criticisms of the Western humanist tradition, especially the modern humanist trend characterized by extravagant talk about "abstract man" and worship of "abstract human nature", but Marx's purpose was not to deny or even Abandon the great tradition of Western humanism and base it on historical materialism. In short, Marx’s intention was to keep the child and throw out the bathwater, not to throw out the bathwater with the child. And some of Marx's successors explained Marx's philosophy. They always consciously or unconsciously exaggerate the differences between Marx's philosophy and the Western humanist tradition, thereby sharply opposing each other. The result of this approach is that the interpreters of Marx's philosophy themselves gave up the formulation of humanistic care and gave this formulation to bourgeois philosophers, making it their patent. This kind of theoretical self-restraint and self-denial has had a disastrous impact on the spread of Marx's philosophy.
Secondly, the interpreters of Marx's philosophy failed to transcend the vision of modern Western philosophy, and therefore did not consciously realize the essential difference between the existence of "human beings" and other existences. Since this difference has not entered the level of consciousness in a universal way, the humanistic dimension of Marx's philosophy has always been closed to interpreters. Traditional philosophy textbooks misunderstand the foundation of Marx's philosophy as general materialism. Therefore, they interpret Marx's philosophy based on the basic proposition that "the world is unified in matter." It is in this basic proposition that the differences between the special being "man" and other beings are smoothed out. To discuss Marx's philosophy based on such a basis will inevitably obscure its humanistic dimension. In fact, as long as this philosophical foundation has not become the object of reflection, even if people are discussing Marx's humanistic theory every day, humanistic care is still like a stamp attached to Marx's philosophy and may be torn off at any time.
Thirdly, socialist countries were first established in the East. Since Eastern societies have long been under the rule of Asia-style despotism, independent personality and the humanities formed on this basis Care lacks corresponding soil in Eastern societies. This makes scholars from Eastern societies naturally obscure this dimension when interpreting Marx's philosophical texts. This obscuration is so serious that after some Eastern countries entered the stage of socialist construction, they still emphasized "taking class struggle as the key link" and completely ignored the humanistic dimension of Marx's philosophy.
(3) Anyone who has carefully studied Marx’s works will find that Marx’s philosophy is full of humanistic spirit. Whether it is "Youth's Considerations in Choosing a Career" written in his youth, or "Doctoral Thesis" or "Paris Manuscripts"; whether it is "Das Kapital" written in his mature period of thought, or "Economy 1857-1858" "Anthropology Manuscripts" or "Anthropology Notes" all contain the persistent pursuit of human dignity, freedom and rights, and are all filled with profound humanistic care.
First of all, Marx is the great successor of the Western humanist tradition. He not only promoted "freedom", the highest value pursued by mankind, by affirming Epicurus's "theory of atomic deflection", but also revealed the true situation and human nature of workers through his criticism of "alienated labor" It also reinterprets Western philosophy in its own way, especially Hegel's philosophy as the master of German classical philosophy, emphasizing that its essence is the true concern for human problems. In "The Holy Family", Marx wrote: "There are three factors in Hegel's system: Spinoza's substance, Fichte's self-consciousness, and the first two factors in Hegel's necessary The unity of contradictions is the absolute spirit. The first factor is the metaphysically disguised nature, which is divorced from human beings. The second factor is the metaphysically modified spirit, which is divorced from nature. The unity of the above two factors, that is, real people and real human beings.” In fact, Marx conducted his philosophical thinking along the great tradition of Western humanism.
Humanistic care - never forget production safety
Secondly, the starting point of Marx's philosophy is "people engaged in practical activities." Marx neither agreed with historical idealists who divorced themselves from real life conditions and talked extravagantly about the imaginative activities of imaginary subjects, nor did he agree with abstract empiricists who ignored human social characteristics and talked about human nature. Marx emphasized that he himself adopted a unique observation method in philosophy: "This method of observation is not without premises. It starts from the premises of reality and never leaves this premises for a moment. Its premise is human beings, But it is not a person who is in a fantasy state of isolation and solitary life, but a person who is in a real development process that can be observed through experience under certain conditions. "In fact, Marx also started from this. Such "real people" or "people engaged in practical activities" start from the discussion of social historical issues and philosophical issues. In this sense, it can be said that human issues and humanistic concerns are by no means a stamp attached to Marx's philosophy, but a red line that implements all Marx's doctrines, especially his philosophical thoughts.
Thirdly, the purpose of Marx’s philosophy is to pursue human freedom and liberation. The essence of Marx's material theory is not to talk about "abstract matter", but to propose a "surplus value theory" by criticizing the common form of matter in the capitalist mode of production - the fetishism of commodities, and comprehensively reveal the relationship between people. and encourage workers to rise up and change this relationship in practice. In the third volume of "Das Kapital", Marx pointed out when talking about the field of production: "Freedom in this field can only be: socialized people, united producers, will reasonably adjust the relationship between them and nature. Transformation of matter, bringing it under their collective control, rather than letting it rule itself as a blind force; by consuming the least amount of power, under conditions most worthy of and most suitable to their human nature Carry out this material transformation." This passage fully reflects Marx's emphasis on and pursuit of human freedom and humanistic care.